Seven Days to the River Rhine: the Third World War - a TL

[Fratsup]

English will not be a major language for long especially as Latin America catches up. If anything Spanish and Portuguese will become the major languages considering at this point a large majority of the world's population actually speaks it and is in prime position to expand its influence, unlike Australia who would be limited by its population size and lack of markets especially as Latin America develops.

As for immigration, the US would be losing much more than just 2 million. The US would be in Syria mode where anyone who can will try to leave the nation since at this point the US is doing terrible, and it's easy to cross the border unlike unlike the Med. Not to get to into modern politics but OTL hundreds make their way into the US illegally and that is with several border protections. With the current situation the only thing stopping people is the distance and the danger and considering how bad the US is most would take the risk and move south.

 

[Miguel Demiurgos]

There would definitely be more than 2 million Americans in Mexico. Perhaps that could be the legal number of Americans in the country, but in reality the illegals would be many more. Although Mexico could only serve as a transit area on a route to South America.

The final destination would be places like Brazil or Chile. Maybe Ecuador and Peru, if they are just looking for a safe place.

Nor do I think it is easy to avoid all migration, the USA is very easy to compare to an African country in the middle of a civil war and contaminated with radiation. They don't have the resources to avoid it and neither does Mexico, although it could ask for help from other Latin countries.

It is not a good scenario to thrive and any place is better. I can also see that migration has racial problems, it is possible that due to the Latino culture and its concept of "improving the race" white and blonde people have preference. In this way, many Americans would hunt with Latino men and women to seek stability. Caucasians would be almost the totality of legal immigrants from Latin countries.

On the other hand, the United States seems to be receiving some international aid. The Latin American union could finance some schools that teach Spanish or Portuguese in their curriculum.

 

[Kalga]

because Russia would be universally hated for the WWIII.

Not necessarily, precisely because of the devastation of NATO countries and general chaos. The narrative of cause and effect of historical events that we take for granted might not be the dominate form of narrative in ITTL 21st century. One of the surviving major powers (India, for example, for no reasons in particular), might spin a narrative to place most of the blame on the euro-Atlantic democracies for backing the Soviets into a corner and then baited them to shoot first, all the while acting like the victim.

I mean, technically the ancient Romans (at least the Republic, if not the early empire as well) only ever fought defensive wars. Always having the moral high ground by only fighting defensively or in aid of allies... obviously that's pretty much bullshit and called out as such once they don't control the narrative any longer.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Speaking of immigration, I suspect that European immigration to Africa will be VERY messy. Probably worse than US immigration to Latin America.

And also a lot of Latinos either are completely European-descending or have European features including being light-skinned. So you can't necessarily differentiate a US white person, from a Mexican with prominent European ancestry just by looking at their faces.
Likewise, African-Americans can try to pass as Afro-Latinos.

In other words, most US citizens have a chance to pass as locals (at least if they dress and behave like locals, and learn to speak Spanish without accent).

While, in Subsaharan Africa, it's completely impossible for Europeans to visually blend in.

Plus, it's easier to learn Spanish or Portuguese as an English-speaker, than to learn Arabic (or Subsaharan Africa languages) as an European, as English, Spanish and Portuguese are already "cousin" languages deriving from Latin, while African languages and Arabic are completely separate.

Also, Islam is the dominant religion of North and Western Africa, while European immigrants will either be Christians, or atheists/agnosticists with a Christian cultural background.

Overall, US citizens will have a real chance to pass as locals in Latin America (because 1 : there are many Latinos, either white or black, that already look similar to US citizens ; 2 : they have the same religion, or close enough if you overlook the Catholic / Protestant differences ; 3 : they have relatively similar languages).
European immigrants in North and Western Africa, on the other hand, will be stuck as the "eternal foreigners" that just can't blend in, because (1 : they look completely different from locals, at least in Subsarahan Africa ; 2 : they have a very different language and will struggle to learn the local language ; 3 : they have a different religion).

And also...

While there was dislike of the USA in Latin America, because of the support of tinpot dictators and economical imperialism, at least the USA never directly colonized or occupied continental Latin America (except for Panama).

Many European immigrants, on the other hand, will have to go to the specific countries that their own country colonized or occupied in the recent past.
Such as, Italians going to Libya (former colony) or Tunisia (that they occupied briefly in 1942-43), French going to Tunisia and Algeria, and of course Europeans (including a lot of French people) managing to reach Western and Central Africa (which was mostly a big French colony).

And in those African countries, a LOT of people (in their 30s to 60s) are old enough that they were already alive at the time of colonization and actually remember it (or even WWII Italian occupation for Tunisia), but young enough to still be dangerous and violent if they want to.
While the vast majority of people would never commit violent crimes, I expect a small but dangerous minority of individuals to take their revenge for colonial crimes on disgruntled European refugees.

--

Just as messy, would be the Soviet immigration, mostly towards Iran (every other bordering country either was itself nuked, or hates Russia, or both). Especially with Iran being an Islamic Republic, and a lot of people remembering the stunt that Stalin pulled in 1946 (when he basically tried to take over northern Iran), and the WWII occupation.

 

[Whiteshore]

Speaking of immigration, I suspect that European immigration to Africa will be VERY messy. Probably worse than US immigration to Latin America.

Which is why I think a lot of the immigration would be to Apartheid SA, assuming the regime adopts the “populate or perish” immigration strategy post-WW2 Australia adopted IOTL, which would be a double-edged sword for the regime as while they boost the white population and all that, most of the immigrants would probably have little ideological affinity with the National Party and its ideology.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Which is why I think a lot of the immigration would be to Apartheid SA.

All European immigrants would certainly WANT to go there, and Apartheid SA (and Rhodesias for that matter) would certainly be ready to take a lot of them to "whiten" their countries, sure.

Honestly, Apartheid SA and Rhodesias might even be ready to "replace" all their unruly Black population by millions of poor desperate Europeans who would accept to do their dirty jobs (and/or to serve as soldiers), expelling their Blacks into Namibia / Botswana / Angola / Mozambique with only their clothes on their backs. Maybe even take over parts of Botswana and Namibia and populate them with Europeans as well, later (once their home territory is at full capacity).

But logistical constraints (because European merchant/transportation navy got devastated, and SA merchant navy is limited, and the country being on the opposite side of Africa) would make it impossible for most.

 

[Whiteshore]

Although it also depends on the technological level, we still don't know if they created the first smartphone in 2020 or 2030.

Speaking of smartphones, considering he was studying in South Africa at this point (and would be safe as a result), I wouldn’t be surprised if Elon Musk ends up inventing the smartphone ITTL.

 

[rfmcdonald]

What a haunting TL. Well done if terrible.

I find myself wondering about Berlin. That must be a strange city, the erstwhile capital of a divided nation that survived the catastrophe that destroyed the nation intact. It might well be the largest city in Europe, or at least the largest city in a former combatant country. What must it be like?

I am also curious about Canada. What has happened there, after the devastation?

I would note that I do not think the United States' shift to a higher birth rate likely. There have been plenty of major crises that have hit not only living standards but actual rates of mortality badly, especially in the former Soviet Union. These did not at all have a result of increasing birth rates by way of compensation. A much worse catastrophe than anything we have seen does not seem likely to reverse the trend.

(I would also note that "baby boom" can be relative.)

 

[rfmcdonald]

I also wonder if France might have fared the least terribly of the combatant states, if only because it had a lower population density than most of these. French cities were hit, but the French countryside might be relatively intact in a way that rural areas in the Low Countries or central Europe or Great Britain were not.

(Speaking of Great Britain, I shudder to imagine what might have happened to a densely populated and urbanized country that saw its cities wrecked and then was cut off from trade. The population collapse in England might well have been as bad as Germany's.)

 

[Whiteshore]

I would note that I do not think the United States' shift to a higher birth rate likely. There have been plenty of major crises that have hit not only living standards but actual rates of mortality badly, especially in the former Soviet Union. These did not at all have a result of increasing birth rates by way of compensation. A much worse catastrophe than anything we have seen does not seem likely to reverse the trend.

TBF, rural populations IIRC tend to be more devout/traditionalist, with all that implies about their willingness to have more children, similarly to how the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel are a growing proportion of the Israeli population moving forward IOTL and all that.

 

[rfmcdonald]

TBF, rural populations IIRC tend to be more devout/traditionalist, with all that implies about their willingness to have more children, similarly to how the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel are a growing proportion of the Israeli population moving forward IOTL and all that.

I am not sure that this analogy works. The Ultra-Orthodox in Israel and the Amish in North America are ethnic groups or subethnic groups that already have long histories of communal unity and distinctiveness. Populations like "rural America" lack this entirely; they are not communities, but simply agglomerations of diverse and disparate populations. There just is not that sort of cultural package extant.

(Now, there could be with specific ethnic groups within a given society. This is a separate affair.)

Beyond that, these rural populations exist in the shadow not only of the American past but of a wider world that is still growing and changing and modernizing. If Brazilians were influenced by their own telenovelas into the demographic transition, why would the same not be true of Americans?

As I noted, baby boom can be relative. I can imagine scenarios where you could have a significant increase in American birth rates, this operating from a relatively low level. I find it difficult to believe that Americans immediately after the disaster would evidence a higher birth rate than, say, post-reunification East Germany.

 

[Miguel Demiurgos]

Well, how about this. During the first 20 years the US population growth was negative or slightly above zero, losing millions to disease and migration.

Over time many religious groups formed separate communities and their ultra-conservative politics allowed them great growth. There are also other groups made up of rural towns created from the initial holocaust, these towns lost their medical supplies and depended entirely on subsistence agriculture to survive. By not having access to any type of protection, many more children would be born, these children would grow up and form a generation, not knowing about sexual education they have early descendants.

That just makes me wonder how the US population actually grows but many decide to leave the country.

 

[walmart]

while they boost the white population and all that, most of the immigrants would probably have little ideological affinity with the National Party and its ideology.

I would say the opposite. Any European refugees will be diehard anti communists.

 

[Gabingston]

I would note that I do not think the United States' shift to a higher birth rate likely. There have been plenty of major crises that have hit not only living standards but actual rates of mortality badly, especially in the former Soviet Union. These did not at all have a result of increasing birth rates by way of compensation. A much worse catastrophe than anything we have seen does not seem likely to reverse the trend.

(I would also note that "baby boom" can be relative.)

I'm pretty sure that the OP stated that the U.S. collapsed back into a pre-industrial agrarian country after the war, so a high birth rate would be in the cards if that were the case . Also because of people wanting to repopulate the country, similar to the Israeli motive to make up for the Jews that died in the Holocaust).

 

[Gillan1220]

Although it also depends on the technological level, we still don't know if they created the first smartphone in 2020 or 2030.

Speaking of smartphones, considering he was studying in South Africa at this point (and would be safe as a result), I wouldn’t be surprised if Elon Musk ends up inventing the smartphone ITTL.

2020 or 2030 is too optimistic for a smartphone to be invented here. The most likely time it will be invented would be 2050-2060. By ATL 2023, I think this world would have the equivalent of Nokia 3310 or Sony Ericson phones of the 2000s.

Where was Elon Musk in 1983? He was still a kid as I know. If he was in South Africa, he may have survived the war but what about the chaos that followed?

What a haunting TL. Well done if terrible.

I find myself wondering about Berlin. That must be a strange city, the erstwhile capital of a divided nation that survived the catastrophe that destroyed the nation intact. It might well be the largest city in Europe, or at least the largest city in a former combatant country. What must it be like?

I am also curious about Canada. What has happened there, after the devastation?

I would note that I do not think the United States' shift to a higher birth rate likely. There have been plenty of major crises that have hit not only living standards but actual rates of mortality badly, especially in the former Soviet Union. These did not at all have a result of increasing birth rates by way of compensation. A much worse catastrophe than anything we have seen does not seem likely to reverse the trend.

(I would also note that "baby boom" can be relative.)

Since Berlin had U.S., British, French, and Soviet troops, neither side would probably target it because of friendly fire. Berlin does survive in 1983: Doomsday for this reason and it would become the capital of Prussia, but it was destroyed in Protect & Survive by the Soviets which disregarded their own troops stationed in the city.

Canada's northern wilderness survived as most major cities are in the South. There would still be an exodus of Canadians up to the north including millions of Americans that will probably die in the winter, just like in World War Z.

 

[Whiteshore]

Where was Elon Musk in 1983? He was still a kid as I know. If he was in South Africa, he may have survived the war but what about the chaos that followed?

That was what I was thinking of as he, at least according to Wikipedia, was studying in South Africa at this point.

 

[Fratsup]

If the US is pre-industrial then I do believe the US would fall apart mostly on account of the distance between community's both in actual distance and culture. It's going to be hard to get the something like a West Virginian and a Plains folk to see eye to eye especially over resources and honestly any local military groups could and would take over if for no other re5than to keep the peace.

Also I do believe that Mexico would become a major power as it now has access to immigration from the US and from the rest of Latin America which would help them reach their potential.

 

[vgh...]

There are many tiers of foods below bread (or rice if you're in east Asia, but that's beside the point). Bread is probably a common reference point between OTL and ITTL.

like what bro? it's literally a staple carbohydrate, what else are large numbers of people in an undeveloped country going to eat? gruel isn't that much cheaper than bread

 

[farmerted555]

like what bro? it's literally a staple carbohydrate, what else are large numbers of people in an undeveloped country going to eat? gruel isn't that much cheaper than bread

Rat. Would you prefer sautee or fricassee?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

With enough tactical nukes you can reach the Rhine within a week.

Sure, you will have to march through an irradiated wasteland and destroy anything of value in Germany, but it's doable.

“destroying anything of value in Germany” might simply be a minor bug or just an acceptable side effect of the operation in Soviet eyes. And since when has the detrimental impact on their forces long term health constrained Russian military operations?